Daily Archives: May 6, 2017

Book review: How U.S. presidents prepare for the end of the world – Pocono Record

Posted: May 6, 2017 at 4:04 am

Carlos Lozada, The Washington Post

"Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government's Secret Plan to Save Itself While the Rest of Us Die"

By Garrett Graff

Simon & Schuster. 529 pp. $28

Garrett Graff says that his new book, "Raven Rock," a detailed exploration of the United States' doomsday prepping during the Cold War, provides a history of "how nuclear war would have actually worked the nuts and bolts of war plans, communication networks, weapons, and bunkers and how imagining and planning for the impact of nuclear war actually changed ... as leaders realized the horrors ahead."

But if there is anything that "Raven Rock" proves with grim certitude, it is that we have little idea how events would have unfolded in a superpower nuclear conflict, and that technological limits, human emotion and enemy tactics can render the most painstaking and complex arrangements irrelevant, obsolete or simply obscene.

These contradictions are evident with each commander in chief Graff considers. During an apparent attack that proved to be a false alarm, Harry Truman refused to follow protocol and instead remained working in the Oval Office. Same with Jimmy Carter, who after a 1977 drill wrote in his diary that "my intention is to stay here at the White House as long as I live to administer the affairs of government, and to get Fritz Mondale into a safe place" to ensure the survival of the presidency. And after Richard Nixon's first briefing on the use of nuclear weapons there were only five possible retaliatory or first-strike plans, and none involved launching fewer than 1,000 warheads national security adviser Henry Kissinger was blunt about the president's dismay with his alternatives: "If that's all there is, he won't do it."

Graff, a former editor of Washingtonian and Politico magazines, covers every technicality of the construction of underground bunkers and secret command posts, every war game and exercise, every debate over presidential succession planning and continuity of government, every accident that left us verging on nuclear war. It is a thorough account, and excessively so; the detail is such that it becomes hard to distinguish consequential moments from things that simply happened. He describes one presidential briefing on nuclear tactics as "a blur of acronyms and charts, minimizing the horror and reducing the death of hundreds of millions to bureaucratic gobbledygook," and at times this book commits the same offense.

Its power, however, lies in the author's eye for paradox. The plans for continuity of government and nuclear war are cumulative, developed in doctrines, directives and studies piling up over decades; yet it is up to short-lived and distracted administrations to deploy or reform them. War planning hinges on technology that constantly evolves, so plans invariably lag behind. More specifically, continuity of government depends on keeping top officials alive, yet "the precise moment when evacuating would be most important also was precisely when it was most important to remain at the reins of government," Graff writes. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proved the point on Sept. 11, 2001, when he stayed at the Pentagon and dispatched Paul Wolfowitz to Raven Rock, the Pennsylvania mountain hideaway north of Camp David that serves as the namesake for this book. "That's what deputies are for," the Pentagon chief explained, in a beautifully Rumsfeldian line.

There are more personal reasons people would choose not to leave Washington in the case of looming nuclear war. For years, evacuation plans excluded the families of senior officials. Apparently the wives of President Dwight Eisenhower's Cabinet members were less than pleased to learn that they had not made the list, even while their husbands' secretaries had. And when an administration representative handed Earl Warren the ID card that would grant him access to a secure facility in an emergency, the chief justice replied, "I don't see the pass for Mrs. Warren." Told that he was among the country's 2,000 most important people, Warren handed the card back. "Well, here," he said, "you'll have room for one more important official."

Perhaps the presence of the Supreme Court would prove inconvenient, anyway, because a post-nuclear America could easily become "an executive branch dictatorship," Graff explains. Eisenhower worried about this, though it did not stop him from establishing a secret system of private-sector czars who would step in to run massive sectors of the U.S. economy and government, with the power to ration raw materials, control prices and distribute food. When President John Kennedy discovered this system, he quickly dismantled it, even if his younger brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, carried around a set of prewritten, unsigned documents providing the FBI and other agencies sweeping powers to detain thousands of people who could be deemed security threats in wartime. And the Eisenhower-era Emergency Government Censorship Board, rechristened the Wartime Information Security Program under Nixon, was finally defunded after Watergate. However, as Graff notes, "the executive orders all still remained drafted ready for an emergency when it arrived."

For all the ominous directives and war scenarios, there is something random and even comical about planning for Armageddon. How many Export-Import Bank staffers rate rescuing? How many from the Department of Agriculture? A Justice Department public affairs official was once even tasked with compiling a lineup of Washington journalists who should be saved. "I remember painfully going over a list of people and wondering how do you balance a columnist I didn't think very much of as opposed to a reporter who I thought really did work," he said. And then, what should the chosen few take along? The congressional bunker at the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia, for instance, included a stash of bourbon and wine; staffers "swore that the stockpile was to be used only to aid a hypothetical alcoholic congressman who might need to be weaned off."

"Raven Rock" revels in the expensive machinery and elaborate contingency formulas presidents had at their disposal to command the nuclear arsenal. High-tech ships known as the National Emergency Command Post Afloat (nicknamed the "Floating White House") were ready for use from 1962 into the Nixon years, while a string of EC-135 aircraft flights (code-named "Looking Glass") began continuous shifts on Feb. 3, 1961, ensuring that one senior military leader with the proper authority would always be available to order a nuclear strike. Not "breaking the chain" of these overlapping flights became an U.S. military obsession, and it remained unbroken until the end of the Cold War.

Some efforts were low-tech, too: In 2009, President Barack Obama signed an executive order decreeing that the Postal Service would be responsible for delivering "medical countermeasures" to homes across America in case of biological attacks, because it had a unique capacity for "rapid residential delivery." (Neither snow nor rain, nor germ warfare.)

Technology meant to defend can prove risky. In November 1979, NORAD computers detected a massive Soviet assault, targeting nuclear forces, cities and command centers. Turns out someone had mistakenly inserted a training tape into the system. Six months later, a faulty 46-cent computer chip briefly made it seem like 2,200 Soviet missiles were soaring toward U.S. targets. And in September 1983, Soviet satellites identified five U.S. missiles heading toward the U.S.S.R. except the satellites had mistaken the sun reflecting off cloud cover as the heat of a missile launch. "The Soviet early warning system was a dangerous mess," Graff writes. Ours wasn't that great, either.

Over the decades, shifts in nuclear policy reflected presidents' views on what was possible, technologically and strategically. Eisenhower planned for "massive retaliation" attacks, Kennedy relied on the notion of mutually assured destruction, and Carter imagined a drawn-out war, in which an initial nuclear exchange could produce weeks of inaction before follow-up strikes. Ronald Reagan issued a presidential directive suggesting for the first time that the United States should "prevail" in a nuclear war, even if the 1983 television movie "The Day After" later left him feeling "greatly depressed," as he wrote in his diary.

For all the horrors it contemplates, "Raven Rock" proves most depressing for those of us left outside the bunkers. Though early on, Cold War administrations regarded civil defense as a priority, officials quickly realized how hard it would be to protect the American population from nuclear attack, especially as the shift from bombers to missiles reduced response times from hours to minutes. "Rather than remake the entire society," Graff writes, "the government would protect itself and let the rest of us die."

But every mushroom cloud has a silver lining: Graff reports that the IRS considered how it would collect taxes in the post-nuclear wasteland and concluded that "it seemed unfair to assess homeowners and business owners on the pre-attack tax assessments of their property."

Leave it to a nation founded in opposition to unfair levies to study the tax implications of the end of the world.

Read more here:

Book review: How U.S. presidents prepare for the end of the world - Pocono Record

Posted in Germ Warfare | Comments Off on Book review: How U.S. presidents prepare for the end of the world – Pocono Record

Book World: How US presidents prepare for the end of the world – The Edwardsville Intelligencer

Posted: at 4:04 am

"Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government's Secret Plan to Save Itself - While the Rest of Us Die" by Garrett Graff.

"Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government's Secret Plan to Save Itself - While the Rest of Us Die" by Garrett Graff.

Book World: How U.S. presidents prepare for the end of the world

Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government's Secret Plan to Save Itself - While the Rest of Us Die

By Garrett Graff

Simon & Schuster. 529 pp. $28

---

Garrett Graff says that his new book, "Raven Rock," a detailed exploration of the United States' doomsday prepping during the Cold War, provides a history of "how nuclear war would have actually worked - the nuts and bolts of war plans, communication networks, weapons, and bunkers - and how imagining and planning for the impact of nuclear war actually changed ... as leaders realized the horrors ahead."

But if there is anything that "Raven Rock" proves with grim certitude, it is that we have little idea how events would have unfolded in a superpower nuclear conflict, and that technological limits, human emotion and enemy tactics can render the most painstaking and complex arrangements irrelevant, obsolete or simply obscene.

These contradictions are evident with each commander in chief Graff considers. During an apparent attack that proved to be a false alarm, Harry Truman refused to follow protocol and instead remained working in the Oval Office. Same with Jimmy Carter, who after a 1977 drill wrote in his diary that "my intention is to stay here at the White House as long as I live to administer the affairs of government, and to get Fritz Mondale into a safe place" to ensure the survival of the presidency. And after Richard Nixon's first briefing on the use of nuclear weapons - there were only five possible retaliatory or first-strike plans, and none involved launching fewer than 1,000 warheads - national security adviser Henry Kissinger was blunt about the president's dismay with his alternatives: "If that's all there is, he won't do it."

Graff, a former editor of Washingtonian and Politico magazines, covers every technicality of the construction of underground bunkers and secret command posts, every war game and exercise, every debate over presidential succession planning and continuity of government, every accident that left us verging on nuclear war. It is a thorough account, and excessively so; the detail is such that it becomes hard to distinguish consequential moments from things that simply happened. He describes one presidential briefing on nuclear tactics as "a blur of acronyms and charts, minimizing the horror and reducing the death of hundreds of millions to bureaucratic gobbledygook," and at times this book commits the same offense.

Its power, however, lies in the author's eye for paradox. The plans for continuity of government and nuclear war are cumulative, developed in doctrines, directives and studies piling up over decades; yet it is up to short-lived and distracted administrations to deploy or reform them. War planning hinges on technology that constantly evolves, so plans invariably lag behind. More specifically, continuity of government depends on keeping top officials alive, yet "the precise moment when evacuating would be most important also was precisely when it was most important to remain at the reins of government," Graff writes. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proved the point on Sept. 11, 2001, when he stayed at the Pentagon and dispatched Paul Wolfowitz to Raven Rock, the Pennsylvania mountain hideaway north of Camp David that serves as the namesake for this book. "That's what deputies are for," the Pentagon chief explained, in a beautifully Rumsfeldian line.

There are more personal reasons people would choose not to leave Washington in the case of looming nuclear war. For years, evacuation plans excluded the families of senior officials. Apparently the wives of President Dwight Eisenhower's Cabinet members were less than pleased to learn that they had not made the list, even while their husbands' secretaries had. And when an administration representative handed Earl Warren the ID card that would grant him access to a secure facility in an emergency, the chief justice replied, "I don't see the pass for Mrs. Warren." Told that he was among the country's 2,000 most important people, Warren handed the card back. "Well, here," he said, "you'll have room for one more important official."

Perhaps the presence of the Supreme Court would prove inconvenient, anyway, because a post-nuclear America could easily become "an executive branch dictatorship," Graff explains. Eisenhower worried about this, though it did not stop him from establishing a secret system of private-sector czars who would step in to run massive sectors of the U.S. economy and government, with the power to ration raw materials, control prices and distribute food. When President John Kennedy discovered this system, he quickly dismantled it, even if his younger brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, carried around a set of prewritten, unsigned documents providing the FBI and other agencies sweeping powers to detain thousands of people who could be deemed security threats in wartime. And the Eisenhower-era Emergency Government Censorship Board, rechristened the Wartime Information Security Program under Nixon, was finally defunded after Watergate. However, as Graff notes, "the executive orders all still remained drafted - ready for an emergency when it arrived."

For all the ominous directives and war scenarios, there is something random and even comical about planning for Armageddon. How many Export-Import Bank staffers rate rescuing? How many from the Department of Agriculture? A Justice Department public affairs official was once even tasked with compiling a lineup of Washington journalists who should be saved. "I remember painfully going over a list of people and wondering how do you balance a columnist I didn't think very much of as opposed to a reporter who I thought really did work," he said. And then, what should the chosen few take along? The congressional bunker at the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia, for instance, included a stash of bourbon and wine; staffers "swore that the stockpile was to be used only to aid a hypothetical alcoholic congressman who might need to be weaned off."

"Raven Rock" revels in the expensive machinery and elaborate contingency formulas presidents had at their disposal to command the nuclear arsenal. High-tech ships known as the National Emergency Command Post Afloat (nicknamed the "Floating White House") were ready for use from 1962 into the Nixon years, while a string of EC-135 aircraft flights (code-named "Looking Glass") began continuous shifts on Feb. 3, 1961, ensuring that one senior military leader with the proper authority would always be available to order a nuclear strike. Not "breaking the chain" of these overlapping flights became an U.S. military obsession, and it remained unbroken until the end of the Cold War.

Some efforts were low-tech, too: In 2009, President Barack Obama signed an executive order decreeing that the Postal Service would be responsible for delivering "medical countermeasures" to homes across America in case of biological attacks, because it had a unique capacity for "rapid residential delivery." (Neither snow nor rain, nor germ warfare.)

Technology meant to defend can prove risky. In November 1979, NORAD computers detected a massive Soviet assault, targeting nuclear forces, cities and command centers. Turns out someone had mistakenly inserted a training tape into the system. Six months later, a faulty 46-cent computer chip briefly made it seem like 2,200 Soviet missiles were soaring toward U.S. targets. And in September 1983, Soviet satellites identified five U.S. missiles heading toward the U.S.S.R. - except the satellites had mistaken the sun reflecting off cloud cover as the heat of a missile launch. "The Soviet early warning system was a dangerous mess," Graff writes. Ours wasn't that great, either.

Over the decades, shifts in nuclear policy reflected presidents' views on what was possible, technologically and strategically. Eisenhower planned for "massive retaliation" attacks, Kennedy relied on the notion of mutually assured destruction, and Carter imagined a drawn-out war, in which an initial nuclear exchange could produce weeks of inaction before follow-up strikes. Ronald Reagan issued a presidential directive suggesting for the first time that the United States should "prevail" in a nuclear war, even if the 1983 television movie "The Day After" later left him feeling "greatly depressed," as he wrote in his diary.

For all the horrors it contemplates, "Raven Rock" proves most depressing for those of us left outside the bunkers. Though early on, Cold War administrations regarded civil defense as a priority, officials quickly realized how hard it would be to protect the American population from nuclear attack, especially as the shift from bombers to missiles reduced response times from hours to minutes. "Rather than remake the entire society," Graff writes, "the government would protect itself and let the rest of us die."

But every mushroom cloud has a silver lining: Graff reports that the IRS considered how it would collect taxes in the post-nuclear wasteland and concluded that "it seemed unfair to assess homeowners and business owners on the pre-attack tax assessments of their property."

Leave it to a nation founded in opposition to unfair levies to study the tax implications of the end of the world.

---

Lozada is the nonfiction book critic of The Washington Post.

Continue reading here:

Book World: How US presidents prepare for the end of the world - The Edwardsville Intelligencer

Posted in Germ Warfare | Comments Off on Book World: How US presidents prepare for the end of the world – The Edwardsville Intelligencer

Russia’s Jehovah’s Witnesses Ban Is Far From the Only Oppression the Group Faces Around the World – Newsweek

Posted: at 4:04 am

Jehovahs Witnesses in Russia are still reeling from a decision by the countrys Supreme Court last month to ban all activity of the Christian denomination under an anti-extremism law. But, while that decision has garnered much attention and condemnation around the world, Russia is far from the only country guilty of oppressing the U.S.-founded religion.

Related: After ban, Jehovahs Witnesses in Russia harassed by police during religious services

Jehovah's Witnesses began in Pennsylvania toward the end of the 19th century and now count 8.3 million members around the globe. The groupheadquartered in upstate New Yorkis perhaps best known for going door-to-door to spread their message. as well as refusing military service and blood transfusions. Their stance on blood transfusions was cited by Russia's justice ministry as evidence that they constituted an extremist organization. However. their position has also been credited with encouraging doctors to come up with less risky alternatives to using blood.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

Still, their beliefs remain controversial in many parts of the world. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released its annual report last monthdetailing various abuses committed against almost all religions all over the globe. Numerous abuses involve Jehovahs Witnesses:

The plight of Jehovahs Witnesses is particularly serious in Eritrea. The African country officially recognizes just four religious groupsthe Coptic Orthodox Church of Eritrea, Sunni Islam, the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church of Eritreaall other groups must register. Many minority faith groups are persecuted, including Jehovahs Witnesses. A decree from the then- and current-President Isaias Afwerki in 1994 revoked Jehovahs Witnesses citizenship due to their refusal to take part in national service or participate politically. Three Jehovahs Witnesses remain imprisoned from that time, as part of a total of 54 Jehovahs Witnesses currently imprisoned without trial.

A decade before Russias ban on Jehovahs Witnesses, the Central Asian country of Tajikistan did the same thing. With, at the time, a congregation of just 600 in the country of around 8.5 million, Tajikistans Culture Ministry in 2007 decreed the groups activity illegal and, again largely citing their refusal to partake in military service, issued a nationwide ban.

Also deemed a Country of Particular Concern by USCIRF, Turkmenistan, has what Human Rights Watch has called an atrocious record when it comes to human rights. Jehovahs Witnesses have been singled out for some of the worst treatment. Members of the group have been fired from their jobs and even evicted from their homes, according to human rights organization Forum 18. Jehovahs Witnesses have also reported being imprisoned without charge and tortured.

In unquestionably the most bizarre form of oppression carried out against Jehovahs Witnesses, a mother and daughter spent 31 months under house arrest, until their release in October 2015, for alleged witchcraft. Their precise crime was said to be conjuring snakes from eggs and stealing a womans life savings, according to Forum 18. Jehovahs Witnesses allege that the punishment was retribution for their failed applications to register their faith with the state.

Central Asias most populous country regularly disrupts Jehovahs Witnesses meetings and, as with those of other religious groups in the country, particularly Muslims, often punishes those in attendance for possessing religious literature.

In Azerbaijan, where all religious groups must register with the government, Jehovahs Witnesses have been subject to raids, arrests, fines and having religious texts confiscated. In 2015, two Jehovahs Witnesses were jailed for almost a year for sharing the Bibles message with their neighbors. Jehovahs Witnesses have also been jailed for refusing to perform military service.

Neighboring Russia, constitutionally secular Kazakhstan has repeatedly fined Jehovahs Witnesses for sharing their faith with others, either verbally or through religious texts, and even inviting people to meetings. Just this week, a Jehovah's Witness was sentenced to five years in prison, accused of propagating ideas that "disrupt interreligious and interethnic concord."

Jehovahs Witnesses in thisformer Soviet country have been threatened with liquidation for holding religious meetings without permission and distributing religious texts. Last year, a Jehovahs Witness was fined for refusing to perform military service, even though he offered to perform civilian service.

Despite there being an estimated 1,500 in the country, Jehovahs Witnesses, along with the Bahfaith, has been banned in Egypt since 1960. Members of the religious group remain prohibited from having places of worship, even if in recent years they have been permitted to meet with fewer than 30 people in private homes, according to the USCIRF report.

Read the original here:

Russia's Jehovah's Witnesses Ban Is Far From the Only Oppression the Group Faces Around the World - Newsweek

Posted in Government Oppression | Comments Off on Russia’s Jehovah’s Witnesses Ban Is Far From the Only Oppression the Group Faces Around the World – Newsweek

The height of political oppression in Zimbabwe – Bulawayo24 News (press release) (blog)

Posted: at 4:04 am

The situation in Zimbabwe need people to unite and take action, there should be a change or reshuffle in the Governance. Besides changing the President, some ministers must be changed too. Not changing politicians is the same as not changing a baby with a diaper full of shit, this will ruin the nation. Young Zimbabweans have lost hope in the situation, some even gave up in pursuing theirdreams.

Theyno longer dream because its pointless. Some people can not even afford proper breakfast, proper lunch, proper dinner while ministers and officials with top positions are having it in excess. Their dogs are even fat because of the leftovers. Imagine people going for 24 hours on only one meal. I am not in Zimbabwe now for some reasons and one of the reasons is the situation in Zimbabwe. I feel for my family and friends back home.

Getting a Degree, PHD or Doctorate is no longer a thing to have pride in because out of all the people who graduate, 99% are going to be street vendors and hustlers and only a percent is going to be employed. University students who are on attachment do not even get paid.

What they can only get is transport allowance and some do not even earn a dime and the University which is owned by the Government expects them to pay fees while they are also in need of transport money, lunch money, pocket money etc while they are on attachment. Is this not day light robbery? Most people in Zimbabwe are only surviving by the Grace of God. You cannot be employed if you do not have a connection even though you have the required qualifications.

Some people got jobs with no degrees simply because they are well connected while someone who have got a first class degree is busy selling airtime, stocking goods in foreign lands to resell as a way of survival. People spend days and nights travelling to Botswana, Mozambique, Zambia and South Africa to buy things they can sell so that they can survive. At the borders and on the roads, they are made to pay revenues and taxes for silly and unnecessary things and this money goes back to the Government which is greedy andmerciless.TheGovernment has failed to secure jobs and create jobs for its people. Once people try to earn money through their own hustles, the Government robs them again through declaration duties, taxes, revenues etc.

People should just wake up and smell the coffee. Some people even failed to further their studies simply because they do not have enough money to pay for varsity, instead of the Government to pay for those people's fees so that at the end they get employed and help develop the nation. Those scholarships, bursaries etc are given to people who can afford, people who are from the rich families, people who are well connected.

For the middle and lower class individuals to get these financial aids, they will have to pay huge amounts of money by means of corruption for them to get Scholarships, Bursaries, Financial aids etc. The Government and its officials have got no heart for the general populace. I have noticed many boys become thieves, some girls become commercial sex workers or end up dating blessers and we judge them wrongly but let us get to know their story first.

Everyone now is just trying by all means to find ways of surviving. I remember one friend of mine got an attachment place in Gweru and her home is in Harare, she was forced to rent a room in Gweru. The rent was $40 and she was being paid $80. While on attachment, she had to pay fees, rent, transport, lunch and other expenses, so was that going to be enough? She ended up dating a married man and when i asked her why, she explained her situation and i understood her decision although it was in some kind of way a bad decision but the Government of Zimbabwe is the one to be blamed for this. If it can not give Scholarships, Free education and Bursaries then at least, those on attachment should not pay fees and tuition for that attachment year. People sleep in long queues at banks and suffer to get the money that belongs to them. Farmers were attacked with teargas by the Zimbabwe Republic Police in Harare simply because they were demanding their money. Was that necessary? There has been a lot of looting, corruption, mass killing, torture etc but enough is enough. A person can spend days, wasting transport money going to the bank to get money but in vain and at the end, when they get this money, it will not even be enough to make the family survive for a week because each day has got its own expenses.

The ballot has failed to change things, pakutoda zvehondo, pakutoda zvechisimba, "this calls for a war". Most members of Parliament and Senators can not even give a point which makes sense, they are old and tired, they are out of ideas but they remain in office while they can no longer perform their duties efficiently why?

Some people are dying but even the media is now censored not to publish or broadcast the negative things happening because of this old and tired government but is there anything to hide?

Everything has become clear now. I was born and grew up knowing some people as ministers, that is some twenty one years ago. For example people like Chombo, Sekeramayi, Parirenyatwa and so forth had been ministers ever since, and up to now, they are still in the ministry.

Why can we not have fresh ministers with fresh new ideas and fresh minds? Road accidents are happening in Zimbabwe not because people are failing to drive although at times mistakes can happen, but look at the roads in Zimbabwe.

The roads have got a series of potholes which the Government has failed to fix. If the Government has failed to fix the potholes, it is better they remove that remaining piece of tar and officially announce that we no longer have tarred roads in Zimbabwe.

This means drivers will be more conscious and will drive knowing that they are in dust roads. Besides the issue of potholes, the road signs are in a mess now.

You can only see a hump or curve when you have reached at it. You have to cram where there are humps, curves and other things because the roads do not even have road signs.

People can just use their assumptions to drive. Everyday people pay on tollgates and other irrelevant charges to the traffic police but where is that money going? Who is spending that money? What does that money do in as much as the development and renovating of roads is concerned? It looks like the General Populace is now taking care of the first class through paying these unnecessary fees on the roads and borders. Instead of the Government taking care of its people, the people are now actually taking care of the Government.

People no longer have the freedom to air their views because they fear for their lives Zimbabwe is not for one person, political leaders or ministers or Members of Parliament but it us for every Zimbabwean, it is for the people. There should be Democracy and Freedom in Zimbabwe. I salute South African Government in as much as Social Grants, Freedom, Democracy, Students Financial Aids, Free Education , Free housing, Feeding schemes, Roads, Employment, Job creations etc, the Government has never failed its people although it can not be perfect but it is way much better.

Many people in Zimbabwe have become blind folded by this Government and its officials. A Minister's son or child does not even have a qualification but he/she can be found working in one of the best top paying companies, driving beautiful cars, living a luxurious life showing off and bragging. When people try to bring this to light, they are tortured and die for the truthwhy? The same people remain as Ministers and just circulate and change ministries, does this mean the Government is failing to find people fit and fresh enough to replace those old and tired people? A normal person should not remain in support of this Government unless if they are a part of those benefitting.

It is someone who received a free farm, free house, free car or free generator who will never see the negative side of this rotten Governmnet. I used to love this Government a lot, i was born and grew up in a Police Camp up until i was 18 because my father was a Police man. This was a free house where we had to pay for nothing, no paying of rent, no paying of water or electricity charges but once the person dies or the job ends, all these good benefits vanish. Many are being blinded by these free poor services. What is free accommodation, free electricity or free water when one is not getting enough salary.

Does free accommodation, water or electricity pay school fees, buy clothes, buy food and so forth? People should just wake up. Zimbabwe has reached its boiling point and it is now time to revolt, the time is now. Vendors try to survive by selling but at times, the police are send by the Municipality and Government to take away their things, they are being chased away from their selling places in a very rude way but i still do not blame the police because there is no freedom. They are forced to ill treat their fellow general populace members. They are made to chase people away from their ways of trying to make ends meet.

I do not blame the traffic police for robbing people but they are also trying to survive, they have no choice. Out of all the civil servants, i feel pity for the Police who are made to abuse people. Before judging, finding the root of the problem is the best thing that can be done. Once the main root which i think is Government is dealt with, then changes will start to develop. Just like how we treat and handle our plants, the old shoots should be pruned out so that the tree or plant grows well and in good health.

If the Government officials are not changed for a longer time, they ruin the whole system. Just like trimming and pruning trees, the Government of Zimbabwe as a whole needs the same. I used to be a good supporter of the Zimbabwean Goernment and Zanu PF party but i got fed up, i got tired. People should be very careful, towards elections, they campaign trying to gain the people's support, people's trust and people's votes and do whatever it takes to make citizens happy but once they win the people votes, they turn their backs against them, the same people that gave them the power.

I am not for any political party but i stand with anyone who is ready to change the situation in Zimbabwe. Even if Zimbabweans living and working abroad send money to their friends and relatives in Zimbabwe, it will not help in any way because people have to suffer in order to get their money from banks due to day limits, long queues and banks failing to provide enough money.

How is this going to end? Last month, Zimbabwe celebrated 37 years of Independence but are Zimbabweans really independent enough? Are Zimbabweans happy?

Read more:

The height of political oppression in Zimbabwe - Bulawayo24 News (press release) (blog)

Posted in Government Oppression | Comments Off on The height of political oppression in Zimbabwe – Bulawayo24 News (press release) (blog)

Photos: National Day of Prayer – Carlisle Sentinel

Posted: at 4:04 am

Interestingly, I don't see religious diversity in any of the pictures. On the 4th of July, America takes a day to celebrate independence from, among other things; the state sponsored Church of England. The National Day of Prayer is a state sponsored Christian religious event invented by Christian groups and approved by the U.S. Congress who ratified into law back in 1952. What would our founders say? The founders were well aware of the dangers of church-state union. They had studied and even seen first-hand the difficulties that church-state partnerships spawned in Europe. During the American colonial period, alliances between religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own shores. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." He used generic religious language that all religious groups would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally employed by nations with state churches. George Washington's administration even negotiated a treaty with the Muslim rulers of North Africa that stated explicitly that the United States was not founded on Christianity. And we all know ole George could not tell a lie! The pact, known as the Treaty with Tripoli, was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, under the administration of John Adams. Article 11 of the treaty states, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.". The United States was not founded to be an officially Christian nation or to espouse any official religion. Our government is to be neutral on religious matters, leaving such decisions to individuals. Is the National Day of Prayer conducted as a Christian event, recognizing the Christian god and Jesus or as an event encompassing all of the diverse religions of the US population? If it is the former, the question is where else do national leaders call out from the halls of power for citizens to unite in a singular religious endeavor? Iran perhaps? Funny also that it will be held on the steps of the taxpayer owned local government courthouse. Apparently in 2017 our courthouse is not that far from the old Church of England!

More here:

Photos: National Day of Prayer - Carlisle Sentinel

Posted in Government Oppression | Comments Off on Photos: National Day of Prayer – Carlisle Sentinel

UN expert in Philippines rebukes Duterte’s war on drugs – The Seattle Times

Posted: at 4:03 am

MANILA, Philippines (AP) The U.N.s investigator on extrajudicial executions issued a veiled rebuke Friday of Philippine President Rodrigo Dutertes deadly campaign against illegal drugs, saying world leaders have recognized that such an approach does not work.

Agnes Callamard, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, told a forum in Manila that badly thought out policies not only fail to address drug abuse and trafficking, they also compound the problems and can foster a regime of impunity infecting the whole justice sector and reaching into whole societies, invigorating the rule of violence rather than law.

She did not mention the Philippines by name.

Callamard was an early critic of the Philippine presidents anti-drug drive, and has been challenged by Duterte to a debate on his campaign, which has left thousands of suspected drug dealers and users dead since he took office in June.

Human rights groups say 7,000 to 9,000 have been killed, but the government refutes that, releasing data this week showing nearly 4,600 people were killed in police operations and homicides found to be drug-related.

In 2016, the general assembly of the worlds government recognized explicitly that the war on drugs be it community based, national or global does not work, Callamard said.

She said U.N. member countries, in their joint commitment to counter the world drug problem, called instead for a multi-faceted and scientific approach that promotes the dignity and human rights of individuals and communities.

She said poorly conceived policies escalate problems including extrajudicial killings, slayings by criminal gangs, vigilante crimes, detention in rehabilitation centers without trial or evaluation and the breakdown of the rule of law.

Duterte spokesman Ernesto Abella expressed disappointment that Callamard did not contact the government before her visit, saying she has sent a clear signal that she is not interested in getting an objective perspective of issues that are the focus of her responsibility.

He said the government sent a letter to Callamard in September inviting her to visit and meet with officials to get their perspective on the drug menace. Abella failed to mention that Duterte earlier rejected Callamards proposal to hold a private meeting and instead insisted on a public debate with her.

Callamard refused to answer questions from media Friday except to say that she was in the country in an unofficial capacity, solely to attend a two-day academic conference at the invitation of the University of the Philippines and human rights lawyers.

She invited all parties, including the government, to participate fully and take stock of what is going to be debated.

Jose Manuel Diokno, head of the Free Legal Assistance Group of lawyers documenting the killings and assisting victims, said Dutertes campaign has been devastating, especially for the poor, who have been the majority of victims.

There is going to be a long-lasting impact of this war on drugs, he said. Whenever people are encouraged to take the law into their own hands its not just lives that are lost but the legal system itself is losing its meaning and value in our society.

Read this article:

UN expert in Philippines rebukes Duterte's war on drugs - The Seattle Times

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on UN expert in Philippines rebukes Duterte’s war on drugs – The Seattle Times

Trump’s war on drug users: Column – USA TODAY

Posted: at 4:03 am

David Sheff 3:18 a.m. ET May 5, 2017

A heroin user(Photo: John Moore, Getty Images)

During the campaign, President Trump committed to addressing Americas drug crisis. He called it a crippling problem and a total epidemic, which it is. An average of 144 people a day die of drug overdoses. Trump promised increased funding and comprehensive Medicaid coverage for treatment. In March, he said, "This is an epidemic that knows no boundaries and shows no mercy, and we will show great compassion and resolve as we work together on this important issue."

Trumps rhetoric suggested a continuation of President Obamas approach, which was founded on a rejection of the failed 45-year-old war on drugs, which treated drug use and addiction mainly as criminal problems. Obama called that war counterproductive and an utter failure. His administration emphasized treatment-and-prevention programs based on scientific advances that have demonstrated that addiction is a brain disease with biological, psychological and environmental determinants. Obamachampioned landmark legislationthat funded mental health and addiction treatment programs and research. He signed the 21st Century Cures Act and the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which provides resources for state and community prevention and treatment efforts. A godsend to sufferers of substance-use disorders, Obamacare mandated that insurance plans cover mental health, including addiction care, in parity with other diseases.

The administration made headway toward ending the war-on-drugs approach. Obamas attorney general, Eric Holder,reversedwartime policies, including draconian mandatory minimum sentencing thatfilled prisons with people convicted of non-violent drug crimes. His surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, released ahistoric report as significant as the 1964 surgeon generals report on smoking on alcohol, drugsand health, which made science-based prevention and treatment a national priority. The report is a progressive set of evidence-based policy recommendations for preventing substance use, intervening early in cases of drug misuse, and improving addiction treatment. The recommendations were the result of a 24-month review of the past 30 years of science and policy in this field. In addition, Obamas recent drug czar, Michael Botticelli, spearheaded a movement that rejected the "failed policies and failed practices" of the past and championed prevention, treatment and harm reduction. For the first time, the drug czar's budget was tipped in favor of prevention and treatment over interdiction and policing.

Reform more than criminal justice to end opioid epidemic: Column

Donald Trump made me great again: Former Miss USA

Trumps initial comments regarding addiction appeared to reflect both a personal passion and a sensible policy. However, the president is systematically abandoning the addicted and their families. Last month, Trump abruptly fired Murthy and announced that the odd couple of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Chris Christie will lead an effort to create policies to combat the opioid epidemic.

Fine, but meanwhile, thoughTrumppromised to fund treatment, hehas proposed slashing almost $6 billion from health agenciesthat, among other priorities, address drug use and addiction. He specifically targeted $100 million in block grants for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Of immediate concern to the 20 million Americans who meet the diagnostic criteria for the disease of addiction, and the40 millionregularly misusing alcohol and other drugs who are at risk and may require some form of treatment, the president has said that one way or another hell end mandates included in the Affordable Care Act.

Trump has said that he'll sign the bill the Housepassed Thursday that will, if it makes it through the Senate,do just that byallowing states to apply for waivers of ACA-required benefits, including mental health and addiction care. Without that mandated coverage, its likely that millions of Americans will lose coverage for an illness that could kill them.

Meanwhile, Trumps team has begun a re-escalation of the drug war. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an old-school drug warrior, criticized Holders policies and suggested thathell reverse them. You have to able to arrest people and then youre intervening in their destructive habit, Sessionssaid. Many people never ever recover from addiction except by the grave.

They would recover if they had proper treatment.

POLICING THE USA:Alook atrace, justice, media

Smart cookies Trump might be honored to meet: Windsor Mann

Its unsurprising that an administration that hasvowed to be tough on crime plans to use battering rams rather than science-based public health efforts ignoring evidence that the former doesnt work and that the latter does. In the past, tough on crime was a boon to the prison system, which is filled with hundreds of thousands of people incarcerated for non-violent drug crimes. Any policythat throws sick people in prison is inhumane, never mind counterproductive.

And how about killing them? Doubts about Trumps compassion toward the addicted were confirmed last weekend when he cozied up to a dictator whose idea of treating drug users is murdering them.According to USA TODAY, his new friend, the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte, hadat least 6,000 people killed for drug crimes in six months. Duterte doesnt distinguishbetween users and dealers. He hasexhorted Philippine citizens:If you know any addicts, go ahead and kill them.

Its critical that the Trump administration reverse directions and focus on a public health approach. Science has demonstratedthat addiction isnt a choice made by people without will power who only care about getting high, no matter the impact on society, their loved onesand themselves. Its a brain disease. We punish people who make bad choices. Butpeople who are ill dont need censure, stigmatization or jail time. They need quality care for an illness that can, if it isnt treated, kill them.

David Sheff is the author of Beautiful Boy: A Fathers Journey Through His Sons Addiction, and Clean: Overcoming Addiction and Ending Americas Greatest Tragedy. Follow him on Twitter:@david_sheff

You can readdiverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers ontheOpinion front page,on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter.To submit a letter, comment or column, check oursubmission guidelines.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2pNaeZ2

View original post here:

Trump's war on drug users: Column - USA TODAY

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on Trump’s war on drug users: Column – USA TODAY

War on drugs may ‘legitimize’ police abuses in PH- expert – ABS-CBN News

Posted: at 4:03 am

MANILA - Police abuses may become normal in the Philippines as violence tends to be "legitimized" in countries that implement intensified crackdowns against illegal drugs, an analyst warned Saturday.

"The war on drugs legitimized and normalized police violence, evidence planting and bribery... when it was implemented in Thailand in 2003," Pascal Tanguay of the Law Enforcement and HIV Network said in a drug policy forum at the University of the Philippines in Diliman.

He said the same trend may happen in the Philippines as President Rodrigo Duterte "copy-pasted" his policy from Thailand.

"The Philippine war on drugs was taken from Thailand's playbook... Duterte just copy-pasted from Thakshin (Shinawatra)," he said in reference to the former Thai Prime Minister.

Filipino police officials have been criticized by the international community for at least 1,800 drug-related deaths and about 5,700 unsolved homicide cases since Duterte declared his crusade against drug users and peddlers in mid-2016.

Among these cases are the killing of former Albuera, Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa in his jail cell in November 2016, and the kidnapping and slay of a Korean businessman in January inside police headquarters Camp Crame. Duterte defended uniformed officials tagged in these controversies.

Tanguay said the same "promotion of violence and encouraged vigilantism" was observed in Thailand's drug war.

Of the 146,170 drug dependents who were arrested in Thailand between 2003 and 2008, 48 percent said police asked them for bribes, Tanguay said.

"(But) no one was held accountable in Thailand for the abuse of power during the war on drugs," he added.

Instead of mimicking a "failed" policy, Duterte should employ an "evidence-based" drug policy that would demonstrate to the international community how the drug problem can be effectively handled, Tanguay said.

"Duterte should take advantage of the 1 million drug users who surrendered to the government... There's an opportunity for the Philippines to show leadership on how the drug war should be handled," he said.

See the article here:

War on drugs may 'legitimize' police abuses in PH- expert - ABS-CBN News

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on War on drugs may ‘legitimize’ police abuses in PH- expert – ABS-CBN News

How to win the war on drugs – The Register-Guard

Posted: at 4:03 am

America spends an estimated $600 billion annually due to the cost of substance abuse, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The NIDA also states that one year of methadone rehabilitation costs $4,700 per patient, while one year of imprisonment related to drug abuse costs $24,000 per person. Resources should be used to provide care for substance-abusing citizens.

Instead of incarcerating drug abusers, we need to treat drug addiction as a disease and provide support. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, Portugal has embraced this concept with a drug treatment program that decriminalizes low-level possession and use of all illicit drugs. It is important to note that decriminalization does not mean that the drugs are legal, it means that drug users can be dealt with outside the criminal system. In the case of Portugal, the substance user appears before a panel who decides whether the person should go to treatment program or pay a fine. By using this approach, abusers are more likely to ask for help without the stigma of drug addiction, as reported by Dr. Joao Goulao.

The most important component of loosening policies is acknowledging that drug addiction is a disease and requires intervention. If we decriminalize drugs, we may be able end the stigma of drug use and reduce spending costs on ineffective prison sentences.

Malia Adee

Eugene

More Letters in the editor's mailbag articles

Mail letters to: Mailbag, 3500 Chad Drive, Eugene, OR 97408-7348

E-mail: rgletters@registerguard.com

Originally posted here:

How to win the war on drugs - The Register-Guard

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on How to win the war on drugs – The Register-Guard

UN Rights Expert, on Visit to Philippines, Denounces ‘War on Drugs’ Approach – New York Times

Posted: at 4:03 am


New York Times
UN Rights Expert, on Visit to Philippines, Denounces 'War on Drugs' Approach
New York Times
MANILA Implicitly rebuking the leader of the Philippines on a visit to his country, the United Nations' top expert on extrajudicial killings said on Friday that governments around the world had rejected the war on drugs approach being championed ...
Becoming Duterte: The Making of a Philippine StrongmanNew York Times
Trump's Turn Toward China Curtails Navy Patrols in Disputed ZonesNew York Times

all 164 news articles »

View post:

UN Rights Expert, on Visit to Philippines, Denounces 'War on Drugs' Approach - New York Times

Posted in War On Drugs | Comments Off on UN Rights Expert, on Visit to Philippines, Denounces ‘War on Drugs’ Approach – New York Times